1
BA 775/22
MHCC020043542022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION No. 775 OF 2022
Chandramohan s/o. Bholanath Mehrotra
R/o. : A310, Sundernagar, S. V. Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064.
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Bandra police
station, vide Cr. No.93/2022)
… Respondent
Appearance :
Mr. Milan A. Desai, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. D. M. Lade, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : SHRI. U. M. PADWAD,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 18/04/2022.
ORDER
.
Perused application, reply and record. Heard parties.
2]
The accused has allegedly cheated the informant, a Non
Resident Indian of Rs. 3,85,75,214/ inducing her to invest the same in
various schemes and Companies.
3]
The present accused claims that other accused Ravi is the
main culprit. Accused Ravi only had contacted the informant and made
all the representations. The informant also agreed to invest only at the
2
BA 775/22
instance of accused Ravi. He (present accused) neither made any
representation nor received any money. Only once he had interacted
with the informant through video call on the say of accused Ravi.
Nothing is to be recovered from him and the investigation qua him is
almost complete. He, therefore, prayed for bail.
4]
It is however, to be noted that accused Ravi had made the
informant invest in a proprietary concern though it was stated to be a
Investment Finance Company to the informant. Not only that the
present accused was also introduced to her as its Director. Several
investment certificates as well as the letterheads of ICICI Prudential
Mutual Fund have been forged. Certain offer/allotment letter
purportedly issued in favour of the informant has also been recovered
from the house of accused Ravi. During the entire period i.e. 13/8/2021
to 10/1/2022 the present accused was also in contact with the
informant through phone and emails. The investigation is still going on.
The amount embezzled is too high. It is not possible to segregate role of
this accused from that of accused Ravi at this stage. Rather, there
appears every substance in the prosecution version that both the
accused shared common intention to dupe the informant. In such
circumstances, release of the accused at this stage is bound to be an
impediment in further investigation. The present accused thus is not
entitled for bail as of now. Hence the order :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Date : 18/04/2022.
Digitally signed
by UDAY
MANOHARRAO
UDAY
MANOHARRAO PADWAD
PADWAD
Date:
2022.04.19
17:23:53 +0930
( U. M. Padwad )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
3
BA 775/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
19/04/2022
01:25 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
V. V. Kulkarni
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge
Room No.)
Shri. U. M. Padwad,
Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 18/04/2022
ORDER signed by P.O. on
19/04/2022
ORDER uploaded on
19/04/2022